Tuesday, 5 March 2013
Home Education UK; a site full of half truths and lies
I have in the past advanced the hypothesis that many home education organisations in this country cause more trouble than they are worth. Today, I want to look at the first such organisation that any parents researching home education in this country are likely to stumble across. Google ‘home education’ and the first non-commercial hit to come up is Home Education UK. Since most parents considering home education will probably begin by finding out about it on the internet; this site is likely to be the first source of information which they encounter.
There is something slightly terrifying about the Home Education UK website. It is a mixture of lies, half truths and very misleading statements. That it would be the first place that a prospective home educator might find ‘information’ goes a good way towards explaining why relations between a lot of new home educators and their local authorities are so poisonous. I will limit myself today to looking at just the first page of this site. Every page of the thing cries out for analysis, but I really don’t have the time to do a thorough job. Here is the first page that any new parent, hoping to home educate, will come across:
http://www.home-education.org.uk/
The first paragraph makes it clear that it is the law of the UK that is being referred to as far as home education is concerned. The second paragraph makes a statement which is, to all intents and purposes, a deliberate falsehood;
‘the law expresses the right to home educate as a parental right’
The law actually says of course that parents must cause their children to receive a suitable, full-time education. This is not ‘expressing the right to home educate as a parental right’ at all; it is laying a duty upon parents. Those who cannot be bothered to look up the actual wording of the law are therefore at once deceived into seeing home education in terms of rights and not duties. I hope that readers will see what an untruthful statement this is and how it is calculated to mislead parents from the very beginning?
Another untruthful statement is made alongside this, that:
‘In law the right to an education is unique in that it is an obligatory right, it is a right that may neither be denied or refused’
This is not true. Young children who are not deemed to have Gillick Competence’, have the right to medical treatment; a right which is exercised on their behalf by either their parents of the courts. A child of five has the right to education and medical treatment; neither of which may in general be declined.
The next paragraph makes the suggestion that there are 60,000 home educated children in this country. Since we know that only 20,000 children are known to local authorities, this would mean that there are twice as many children who are unknown. This is unlikely and no grounds are given for believing such a thing.
The final paragraph is a quotation from Lord Brougham, who was Lord Chancellor in this country in 1834. He speaks disparagingly of compulsory education. Why we would care to read the views of a man who presided over the courts of this country at a time when gay sex carried the death penalty and the law allowed men to beat and rape their wives, is something of a mystery! Perhaps his opposition to compulsory education washes away such minor points. It is worth noting in any case that in 1837, this same man introduced a bill to establish schools for ordinary children in this country and felt by that time that universal schooling was the best thing in the world.
Two more points strike one about this opening page of the first site that anybody researching home education on the internet will come across. The first is the bizarre colours; with yellow text on brown and maroon backgrounds. It puts one in mind of David Icke! The second is that this site is subsidised by no fewer than seventeen commercial companies.
Any parent who knows nothing about home education and visits the Home Education UK site will be fed a series of falsehoods and half truths of such a nature as to set them at once upon the wrong path. Those who swallow the initial lie that the law in this country describes home education as a ‘parental right’ will already be working from a distorted perspective and everything else on this site will serve only to deepen their confusion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While we're talking about half-truths and outright lies, have you looked at the next site down - https://www.gov.uk/home-education
ReplyDeleteWhich includes the gem -'you can get help with home education from your local council.'
AND, which I find funny in a sick sort of way given the current situation - 'If you’re taking your child out of school, you must write to the head teacher. You can ask the school to teach your child part-time, but the school doesn’t have to accept your request.'
Atb
Anne
Meant to say, the revision date is 14 February 2013 which leaves me with a feeling that the left hand knows even less about what the right one is doing than usual.
DeleteYou could have warned me to get protective eye gear before I went to that site. It is not an aesthetic feast for the eyes!
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Those who cannot be bothered to look up the actual wording of the law are therefore at once deceived into seeing home education in terms of rights and not duties."
They don't need to read Mike's page to gain the impression that home education is a right. They just need to read the first lines of the Government's guide to EHE which states:
"Education is a fundamental right for every child and we recognise that parents have the right to choose to educate their child at home rather than at school."
Also, later in the document, section 7 of the Education Act is quoted to support a statement that parents have a right to educate their children at home.
So if this is a mistake on Mike's part, it's a mistake also being made by Ministers and the Department of Education. I have studied education law with respect to HE on and off for over 19 years and I suspect the error is yours. Like you, I don't have time to go through all of you complaints, but since you appear to be wrong on the first and most important, I suspect it would be a waste of my time.
Since you have said that you will not be reading further replies on the other thread, I'll add my reply here instead.
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
"It is always interesting when people try to disrupt this blog. It generally means that I am on the right track. Observe the comment above this one; the one for dumpsters."
Calm down, Simon, no need to get paranoid. A simple search of the internet reveals that you are not the only victim of such ads. For example, see the first comment on this blog entry, http://curls-studio.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/magic-bullet-6-announcement.html and the 11th comment on this page, http://www.fobbleup.com/2013/02/10-useful-gmail-tips-that-everybody-should-know-about.html
There are millions of such comments on blogs. They are posted automatically by software and it's done to increase search engine rankings. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_in_blogs for a fuller explanation, which also contains suggestions on how to combat the problem.
I wonder when these particular spam messages about dumpsters began? I'm wondering if the spam software looks for slightly 'relevant' blogs when they choose where to spam. If so, this paragraph written by Simon on the 21st Feb might explain the dumpster link:
Delete"The mother to whom I had been talking was, unsurprisingly, a keen organic gardener. She believed passionately in recycling and was also a fanatical composter. It turned out that she felt it a moral imperative to explain to her children why as much as possible should be recycled and to emphasise to them the finite nature of the Earth’s resources. So far, so good; many readers will no doubt agree. She never missed an opportunity to show her children why it made sense to recycle things and had recently explained to the nine year-old why it made more sense to put potato peelings on the compost heap, rather than throw them in the rubbish bin as many children might be tempted to do. Brownie point to mum for raising responsible and eco-aware children!"
'Calm down, Simon, no need to get paranoid. A simple search of the internet reveals that you are not the only victim of such ads. For example, see the first comment on this blog '
ReplyDeleteThere is a simpler explanation and it involves Alison Sauer and her cronies. I shall be posting about this tomorrow.
"There is a simpler explanation and it involves Alison Sauer and her cronies. I shall be posting about this tomorrow."
DeleteOoo Simon heads for defamation dinghy. Should be good to watch :D
Beware of compulsive lawyers.
DeleteOh yes, a conspiracy is always more interesting than random chance.
Delete'I have studied education law with respect to HE on and off for over 19 years and I suspect the error is yours. Like you, I don't have time to go through all of you complaints, but since you appear to be wrong on the first and most important, I suspect it would be a waste of my time.'
ReplyDeleteRead the law and not the commentaries on it; these are often mistaken. Mike Fortune-Wood claims that;
‘the law expresses the right to home educate as a parental right’
If you could just point out the relevant part of the law, then this will at once prove me wrong.
I suppose that I should absolutely clear about this. If the Home Education UK site claimed that the law could be interpreted as conferring a parental right to home educate; this would be misleading, but essentially a matter of opinion. The claim though that;
ReplyDelete‘the law expresses the right to home educate as a parental right’
is in another class entirely. It would only be true if we could find a relevant passage in the law which expressly stated the case in those terms. If anybody would care to point me in the direction of this, I shall be happy to admit that I am mistaken.
'"There is a simpler explanation and it involves Alison Sauer and her cronies. I shall be posting about this tomorrow."
ReplyDeleteOoo Simon heads for defamation dinghy. Should be good to watch :D'
It would of course be defamatory, were I to say untruthful things about Alison Sauer. If I were to assert that in the course of an exchange of message she has asked people to find my home address and then publicised it, saying 'for future reference and deliveries of manure', this would not be defamatory, but true. As I say, I shall be discussing this and other matters relating to this dreadful woman tomorrow.
That Bucket woman is dreadful.
DeleteWhy are we calling her the Bucket woman?
DeleteConspiracy, or the genetic tendency of human beings to find patterns in coincidence?
Delete"It would of course be defamatory, were I to say untruthful things about Alison Sauer."
DeleteIf you state that Alison is responsible for these particular messages, you would need to provide evidence of this as a defence against in any court case. A few comments about delivering manure to you home address months ago seems a little weak. Have you checked the location of the person making the posts in Sitemeter?
'If you state that Alison is responsible for these particular messages, you would need to provide evidence of this as a defence against in any court case.'
DeleteI doubt that Alison would be foolish enough to start legal action. Incidentally, I am not talking only of a few months ago. Actually, a court case might be quite fun! I could issue witness summonses to Sarah Eaton, Cheryl Moy, Jai Daniels-Freestone and all the rest of her buddies.
Did you know you have to offer such witnesses money to cover travel expenses and any loss of earnings? Presumably you can claim these back if you are awarded costs, but that doesn't always happen even if you win.
Deletehttps://www.gov.uk/home-schooling-information-council
ReplyDeletesays - You have the right to educate your child at home (sometimes called ‘home schooling’).
Revision date February 14 2013
Does that make it a site full of half truths and lies? Can we look forward to you attacking it, and the Council websites who are also, shall we say, being creative with their interpretation of the law?
I shall enjoy reading that post as part of your look at information about HE.
Atb
Anne
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete“Read the law and not the commentaries on it; these are often mistaken. Mike Fortune-Wood claims that;
‘the law expresses the right to home educate as a parental right’”
Of course I've read the law. Section 7 gives parents the right to choose to provide a suitable education "by regular attendance at school or otherwise". The parent chooses how they satisfy the duty.
Are you suggesting that a law must explicitly use the word 'right' in order to confer a right? Can you define the difference between a right to choose an alternative to school (for eg, HE) and a choice to use school or an alternative (like HE) that is written into a law?
' Section 7 gives parents the right to choose to provide a suitable education "by regular attendance at school or otherwise". '
ReplyDeleteEver have those moments of utter despair, when you just know that whatever you say will not be getting through? Section 7 of the 1996 Education Act says;
The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education
This is not conferring a right, but imposing a duty and giving people a choice of ways in which that duty may be fulfilled. Rights simply do not enter into the matter as far as parents are concerned and it is this which is at the root of much of the confusion about home education in this country. By creating this duty in law, the act certainly creates a right, but this right has nothing at all to do with parents. The right created is the right of children to an education. Hand in hand with this right, as with all rights, is a duty laid upon others; in this case the parents. I hope that this makes things a little clearer. The children have the rights and the parents have the duties. Unfair, I know, but that's how life is sometimes!
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"This is not conferring a right, but imposing a duty and giving people a choice of ways in which that duty may be fulfilled.
Of course I know that provision of an education is a duty, that's why I wrote, 'The parent chooses how they satisfy the duty.'
We have a duty to provide education and the right to choose school or otherwise.
I must say just a few more words about rights and duties. if I am called for jury service or to give evidence as a witness in a court case, then I have a duty to attend the court. How I get to the court is entirely up to me. I could walk, get a bus, drive, cycle or reach the court in any way that I wished in order to undertake my duty. If I were to state here:
ReplyDelete'the law expresses my right to travel to court by bicycle'
then people might, quite rightly, assume that I had misunderstood the point of the law in this case. It is not to establish my right to travel by car or bicycle, but to ensure that I undertake my duty and attend court. In fact the law does not really care a damn how I get to court, as long as I turn up. It is precisely the same with education. The law does not give a stuff how it is done, as long as the duty is undertaken. To say that the law 'expresses the right to home educate as a parental right' would be as ridiculous as claiming that the law requiring duty service 'expresses the right to attend court in a taxi'.
If the law about jury service bothered to state that you can travel to court by car or otherwise, you might have a point.
DeleteExactly.
Delete'If the law about jury service bothered to state that you can travel to court by car or otherwise, you might have a point.
ReplyDeleteThe law on education was framed in this way not give parents some right, but rather to ensure that they did not evade their duty. Had the bit about, 'by regular attendance at school or otherwise' not been included', then children in hospitals or prisons, as well as those living in remote locations far from the nearest school might not have been educated. The law makes it plain that such circumstances are no excuse for not furnishing a child with an education. If you can't or won't get the child to school; then you had better make other arrangements. This is all about making parents carry out a duty, not trying to create a right for them. It is for this reason that the information on the Home Education UK site is deliberately misleading.
"It is for this reason that the information on the Home Education UK site is deliberately misleading."
DeleteYet exactly the same interpretation is given on innumerable government, local government and other web sites. Why pick on Mike's site? I assume it has nothing to do with the fact he banned you from his email list.
Well you seem to be in a minority of one with that interpretation.
ReplyDelete'Why pick on Mike's site? I assume it has nothing to do with the fact he banned you from his email list.'
ReplyDeleteIf there were only one untruthful and misleading thing on the first page of the site, I might not have bothered to mention it. This site is important because it is the first one which comes up when googled and is therefore one which anybody planning to home educate is liable to come across. Every page contains terrible inaccuracies and downright falsehoods.
I was banned from the email list nearly four years ago; I have not kept a grudge that long! The fact that he tried to have me arrested last year certainly did not serve to endear him to me; nor did his efforts to have this blog closed down by contacting blogger and claiming various untruthful things about me. He is an underhand and slippery weasel, despite the right-on persona which he projects.
"Every page contains terrible inaccuracies and downright falsehoods."
ReplyDeleteAccording to you. Everyone else disagrees with your interpretation of the first point you bring up so I'll leave the discussion here since it seems a little pointless.
'According to you.'
ReplyDeleteNot really. The fact that Lord Brougham was in favour of universal schooling and introduced a public education bill in 1837 is not just my personal opinion. I really do not have time to go through every page of the site, but you might care to look at the page on home educated famous people and see if you can spot the ones who were really home educated. It is not easy!
So you believe that historically the intention was compulsory school without the parent having the right to choose how they fulfilled their duty? If so, why didn't they write the law to say this? Home education was common at the time so if they wanted to ban it except in exceptional circumstances (such as remote locations, illness, etc) why didn't they write the law to reflect this?
Delete"This site is important because it is the first one which comes up when googled and is therefore one which anybody planning to home educate is liable to come across. Every page contains terrible inaccuracies and downright falsehoods."
ReplyDeleteAhhh, now we understand readers. It's jealousy. Simon's wishes his own blog, similarly full of terrible inaccuracies and downright falsehoods, to outrank Mike's site in Google.
Simon said,
ReplyDelete“Why we would care to read the views of a man who presided over the courts of this country at a time when gay sex carried the death penalty and the law allowed men to beat and rape their wives, is something of a mystery!”
You don’t think that his work for legal reform, the education of the poor and for the abolition of slavery count for anything? Brougham wrote many articles advocating social reform and also wrote a book, pamphlets and articles attacking the slave trade. His first parliamentary speech was against slavery and in 1811 he introduced a bill (which passed) to make it a felony to trade in slaves. He successfully defended a group of weavers who were arrested for trying to form a union and was also a strong supporter of equal rights for women. In fact, his progressive views meant he failed to gain government office when Lord Melbourne came to power because his views were considered too radical.
Do you similarly dismiss the views and opinions of everyone with any influence in the early 1800s regardless of their personal views and actions?
But there are other ways a student of English can learn the language online.
ReplyDeleteHere are the top rated Spanish translation i - Phone apps available on the App Store right now.
Because of this, it is imperative to determine first
their difficulties and needs so that whatever materials
a teacher purports to design should be in accordance with
these needs.
Here is my web blog - cach hoc tieng anh